Category: Law, Constitution, and Jurisprudence

Because there are no limits on what can be imposed as a result of a constitutional convention. In practice we have two choices: we would either propose amendments if we thought it was possible (it’s not – the state and its clients are too numerous and with too many resources), or we would follow the founders and construct a common law suit against the state, under threat of revolution if those complaints were unanswered. That is in fact what the declaration consists of: a common law suit against the state. And we have just as much legal right and precedent to do so as did the founders. This is the trajectory our organization presumes and it is the one we are following because we believe war is a deterministic outcome and the only solution deterministic outcome is to attempt to solve the problem prior to the outbreak of violence the consequences of which would be random, and throw the world into chaos.

Reply addressees: @FuryForth